We love secrets when we can call the shots on who and what is being revealed. But are we ready for disclosure of all secrets, including those of our own?

Part culture shift, part digital phenomena, the curtain that used to protect privacy is fast dissolving.

These
days, we discuss WikiLeaks, debate NSA eavesdropping and peer into
hidden profiles. We're no longer surprised when embarrassing photos of
public officials or an occasional friend make their way to the open
web. Just this week, we learned the sources of over $400 million in "dark money" that influenced the 2012 presidential campaign.

Exposing what was previously concealed leaves us much to view but far more to contemplate.

Are we ready for every secret to be brought to light?

Secrets are
as much the domain of families and individuals as they are of churches,
corporations and governments. They run the gamut from love affairs and
abusive behaviors to breaches of duty, high crimes and treason.

As
more secrets are revealed, I've observed a simple, yet recurring,
theme. We judge secrets not on content but, rather, upon relationships
we share with those being exposed.

Translation: it's not necessarily about the what, it's about the who.

Doubt
me on the bias? Consider Hillary Clinton's famous attack on "the right
wing conspiracy" (and the deafening silence of the women's
movement) when Bill Clinton's sexual escapades came to light.
Republicans, meanwhile, had a field day. They peddled diatribes
about Monica Lewinsky's stained dress and repeatedly called for the
President's impeachment.

Not
long afterward, similar news arose about Arnold Schwarzenegger. When
a few women stepped forth to claim he extracted sexual
favors, conservatives cried foul play. Sean Hannity, one of Clinton's
biggest foes, fawned over Arnold during an exclusive FOX interview.
Hannity used the opportunity to
denounce mean-spirited Democrats attempting to sully Arnold's reputation
and sabotage his campaign for the California governorship.

The
public eventually learned the truth. Bill Clinton and Arnold
Schwarzenegger were both guilty of similar behaviors. Yet people
continue to excuse one man while condemning the other. We're biased.

We
love it when an individual, corporation or religious group we distrust
finally gets exposed. We feel justified, empowered and even a bit
smug. We label our whistle-blowers as courageous freedom fighters
and celebrate their valiance.

But
move identical exposures to the institutions we love or the people in
whom we trust and suddenly the game - and the bar - changes. When our
beloved pets get caught, we attack the messengers and, in the case of
politics, make claims for national security.

We
consider the content of what's being exposed only when doing
so undermines the standing or authority of our chosen foes. And,
we canonize and denigrate the whistle-blowers based on
whose trusted leaders or sacred cows come into question.

Not
many years ago, my daughter asked me to Google Stockholm
Syndrome. She'd learned of it through a journalism class and thought I'd
find it of interest. Though previously unfamiliar with the term, I'd
learn of a condition in which hostages express empathy and sympathy
toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them.

It
was a provocative thought. My daughter had already observed the years
I'd spent concealing and excusing the poor behavior of others. Somehow, I
viewed exposing others as unseemly, unkind and disrespectful.

Even
as a corporate manager, I'd deal with wrongful behavior privately. When
possible, I'd give errant employees opportunity to
avoid embarrassment by tendering their resignation rather than getting
fired for cause. Was I biased in my own way?

At
some visceral level, I know the pain and fear that accompanies the
generating and keeping of secrets. For some, it's been a matter of
having done something they would later regret. Others carry a heavy
weight: they've witnessed someone'ss wrongful behavior and
remain silent, often intimidated by authority.

Finally,
there are those who knowingly choose roads of brazen entitlement.
Their willfulness and deliberate actions seriously injure their fellow
man.

These days, we don't have to be rich or famous to find our private life
made public and our secrets brought to light. We wonder if there is any
person, institution or entity truly insulated from potential exposure.
Open secrets is a growing reality in this Brave New World.

As we move forward, will we react based on favoritism or will we measure and evaluate what's come forth objectively? Will we continue pandering to our own interests or look for ways to become a better people?

If we are to embrace the times, advance society and rise up to new levels of sunshine, may we also learn to equitably apply our judgment and exercise a little more grace.

Next time we judge, may we aim to balance the scales as in the image above.

There are more secrets waiting to come to light - and one of them might be our own!